Vietnam Swift boat vets take out anti-Kerry TV ad

[Ought Six]

Scathing New Ad Blasts Kerry's War Record


Human Events Online
Aug 4, 2004

HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a copy of a scorching new television advertisement addressing Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's record in Vietnam that has been produced by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth.

The group is a non-partisan "527" organization whose membership is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on Navy Swift Boats or affiliated commands.

The group says, "Senator Kerry misrepresented his own actions and those of his fellow officers and men."

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is chaired by Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (ret), and includes on its steering committee John O'Neill, the naval officer who took over John Kerry's Swift Boat in Vietnam and who is the author Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, an upcoming book from Regnery, a sister company of Human Events.

In Unfit, O'Neill reports that what he learned convinced him -- and the majority of veterans who served directly with Kerry -- that "John Kerry was and is unfit for command as a Naval officer, let alone as commander in chief of the Untied States."

To view this must-see TV ad, click here:

Vietnam Vets Organization Blasts Kerry in New TV Ad

 

[Brooks]

Thanks to Congress, I believe the ad can only legally run for another month. Once we are within 60 days of the election, no negative campaign ads by private groups are allowed.

 

[Rattlehead]

Nope. Ads which are funded by private individual contributions have no restrictions (see: George Soros loophole). Ads funded by Corporate donations are restricted.

 

[MaryJo]

Read over on Free Republic that Kerry/Edwards lawyers are sending out letters to all stations about that ad. Said Rush first read it and then someone saw it on ABC. What they don't like Free Speech? Also saw where McCain is saying something against the ad. I don't think that is right either. Those men should be able to tell their side of the story.

 

[Rattlehead]

Read over on Free Republic that Kerry/Edwards lawyers are sending out letters to all stations about that ad. Said Rush first read it and then someone saw it on ABC. What they don't like Free Speech? Also saw where McCain is saying something against the ad. I don't think that is right either. Those men should be able to tell their side of the story.

1st Amendment rights for liberal commies; none for conservative and truth-tellers.

 

[Green]

6 out of 7 of Kerry's boat mates support him. The 7th guy is dead.

The boat captains who do not support him were not on his boat.

This is political b.s. of the worst kind.

 

[Ought Six]

One of the people in the ad is the doctor who treated Kerry's wound that he got a Purple Heart for, and that doctor says Kerry lied about that wound. The others were in Kerry's boat squadron. They lived with, ate with, went on missions with and fought with Kerry. Thier boats all worked in close mutual support. Another one of the vets in the ad was an eyewitness to the action that Kerry won the Bronze Star for, and he says Kerry is lying about that as well.

Political BS ??? Perhaps not.

 

['plain o joe']

6 out of 7 of Kerry's boat mates support him. The 7th guy is dead.

The boat captains who do not support him were not on his boat.

This is political b.s. of the worst kind.

Yup, they were on Good Morning America.

At least Kerry got his feet muddy on the Mekong. He headed west, while Bush headed East? to Alabama...

 

[homepark]

"Fahrenheit 911" gets touted as a 'documentary', and other Nam Vets expressing their version of events is called a 'dirty trick'. Interesting spin.

Not being on the boat is only a valid argument if the folks were not associated at all with Kerry. Turns out they did patrols together, slept together, ate together, etc. They all had first hand knowledge.

I don't hear the left mentioning Kerry's slander to all of us when he returned. Yet, they get upset when the majority of those whom he served with, are telling a different story of his Nam service.

Lets see if our un-biased media will give these Vets some air time.

 

[Green]

"I knew it was wrong"



John Kerry's former commanding officer now retracts a statement he signed onto at the prodding of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans that said Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star. It was a "terrible mistake," and he felt "time pressure" from those involved in the book, the officer says. The Drudge Report, at least partly responsible for the hype around the anti-Kerry ad and book -- and which yesterday bore this blaring headline: "VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL..." is linking to the Boston Globe piece with the understated headline "One Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry..."

Yes, one veteran, who happened to be Kerry's commanding officer. Since none of the other veterans who appear in the anti-Kerry ad actually served with Kerry, this retraction delivers a mighty blow to their claims. As the Globe points out: "All of Kerry's crewmates who participated and are still living said in interviews last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star."

From the Globe: "A key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake' in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book."

"Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry ''lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.'"

"The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew. Crew members have said Kerry's actions saved their lives."

"Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star. 'I still don't think he shot the guy in the back,' Elliott said. 'It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here.'"

"Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel ''time pressure' from those involved in the book. ''That's no excuse,' Elliott said. 'I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.'"

"The affidavit also contradicted earlier statements by Elliott, who came to Boston during Kerry's 1996 Senate campaign to defend Kerry on similar charges, saying that Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. The book, 'Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,' is to be published next week. Yesterday it reached number one on the bestseller list on Amazon.com, based on advance orders, in part because of publicity about it on the Drudge Report."

-- Geraldine Sealey

www.salon.com


As I said, this is nothing but political b.s.

A smarmy smear orchastrated by the Bushco traitors, those same guys who had "other priorities" rather than to serve their country in the military. And to think, these Naval officers willingly agree to be tools to traitors to the constitution.

Green

 

[Ought Six]

G:

"A smarmy smear orchastrated by the Bushco traitors, those same guys who had "other priorities" rather than to serve their country in the military. And to think, these Naval officers willingly agree to be tools to traitors to the constitution."

If I read you correctly, aside from your idiotic, hysterical cries of 'treason!", you appear to be accusing the Bush administration of orchestrating these ads. If that is the case, then please provide some evidence for that remark (or admit you made it up out of thin air). Obviously, the people who donated money for the ad are pro-Bush, just as the leftists who fund MoveOn.org (like Soros) are pro-Kerry. But you say "orchestrated by Bushco", which implies that GW himself is behind the ads. So where is your proof? The Kerry people and the liberal media are expending tremendous resources to find just such evidence, as it would be a huge story and would seriously discredit the Bush reelection campaign. They have come up with *nothing*. So have you found evidence which the media & Kerry's people could not find, or is your claim a lie ???

 

[Green]

“But you say "orchestrated by Bushco", which implies that GW himself is behind the ads. So where is your proof?”

I have noticed a common, albeit unimaginative, ploy used here wherein opinions/commentary derogatory to a particular persuasion is attacked with the standard phrase “prove it.”

The extremity of the views I express, while sometimes bordering on the absurd, are nonetheless just that, opinion. My opinion, take it or leave it.

Do you feel that attacking other posters (“aside from your idiotic, hysterical cries”)
and their views, regardless of your perception of merit, contributes anything to the discussion?

Or do you prefer that posters take the easy way out and merely cut and paste the opinions of others, so long as they agree with YOUR views?

In case you haven’t guessed yet, I don’t like Bush. And I limit these comments and views to this sub-forum only as it advertises itself to be All Things Political, not All Things Republican.

When I form an opinion, I start with the premise, “who benefits” and move on from there.

When discussing the anti-Kerry smarmy smear campaign, is it so hard to see who benefits?

 

[Green]

Why, lookey here, some more cut and paste, of an alternate flavor!

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Start to Sink

Editorial by Shane Cory
August 6, 2004

For the last few weeks, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been ramping up their media operations for the release of their attack ad on John Kerry. This television ad coincides with a book by one of the SwiftVet founders, John O'Neill.
I personally received a few e-mails as the managing editor of the Washington Dispatch. One such e-mail from Tom Mortensen included the following:

"He [Kerry] recommended himself for 2 of his Purple Hearts for minor scratches that were probably self-inflicted and, more importantly, for the Silver Star. The events surrounds the award of the Bronze Star are also questionable as will be revealed in a soon to be released book, ““Unfit to Command””, currently #2 in sales at Amazon.com."

This was part of my response:

"Do you have solid evidence that Kerry’’s wounds were self-inflicted? If you do bring facts to light and if they’’re for real then I’’ll give you a column. There is also the risk that if they are not for real or you don’’t have any evidence to support your claims, you’’ll get a column anyway, just not what you expected."

Tom responded with:

"The facts will [be] out over the next several weeks via testamentary evidence from officers who participated in the actions in question"

I should have called "b.s" at that very moment but I held off due to the chance that they could have some hard, credible evidence against John Kerry. Yet, I strongly felt that someone cannot make that type of accusation without backing it up, no matter what their media plans may be.

I didn't call it then, but I'll call it now. Bulls***! [edited from original. Green]

After looking into the formation of this group which was funded by Republican donors and put together within the past four months, something looked odd. Combine the Republican money with a communications operative known to be "well connected" within the RNC, and you have a Republican hit squad that's willing to slither below James Carville's moral threshold. That's pretty low.

Yesterday afternoon, the first hole appeared in the hull of the Swift Boat Veterans' ship of lies. A key figure in the SwiftVets' attack against John Kerry admitted that he made a "terrible mistake." George Elliott, Kerry's former commanding officer admitted that he was given an affidavit to sign by the SwiftVets that attacked Kerry's nomination for the Silver Star. He admitted to feeling pressured to sign the false affidavit due to the approaching deadline of the book by John O'Neill. Elliott admitted the mistake and feels that John Kerry deserved his Silver Star.

John O'Neill, the author of the soon to be released book that attacks John Kerry's Vietnam service, never even served on a swift boat at the same time as John Kerry. Kerry was back home in the United States by the time O'Neill took command of his first unit! O'Neill did not even know John Kerry until he was tapped by Richard Nixon. Huh, what was that? Yes, this story gets even more interesting.
Back in 1971, Richard Nixon needed a plan to counter anti-war groups such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War of which John Kerry was a member. He tasked Chuck Colson (of Watergate infamy) to form a group around the young John O'Neill. Yes, this is an old, bitter fight.

The first round of Kerry v. O'Neill occurred in June of 1971 on the Dick Cavett Show. O'Neill takes pride in displaying this "debate" on the website of the Swift Board Veterans for Truth.

The second round occurred this week when O'Neill and his cohorts released this ad against Kerry. Unfortunately for John O'Neill, he knocked himself out with a self-inflicted flurry of lies and stupidity. Instead of taking advantage of non-political veterans by preparing affidavits for their signature and pressuring them to sign them, maybe O'Neill should have dedicated time passing out fliers for Bush's reelection campaign.

Obviously, O'Neill has held a grudge against John Kerry for over three decades. Now backed by Republican money and at least one false affidavit, he may have thought that he had a chance against Kerry. Thankfully, with men like George Elliott coming forward, the truth will prevail.

Shane Cory is the managing editor of the Washington Dispatch.

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/opinion/article_9754.shtml

 

[homepark]

“But you say "orchestrated by Bushco", which implies that GW himself is behind the ads. So where is your proof?”

I have noticed a common, albeit unimaginative, ploy used here wherein opinions/commentary derogatory to a particular persuasion is attacked with the standard phrase “prove it.”

The extremity of the views I express, while sometimes bordering on the absurd, are nonetheless just that, opinion. My opinion, take it or leave it.

Do you feel that attacking other posters (“aside from your idiotic, hysterical cries”)
and their views, regardless of your perception of merit, contributes anything to the discussion?

Or do you prefer that posters take the easy way out and merely cut and paste the opinions of others, so long as they agree with YOUR views?

In case you haven’t guessed yet, I don’t like Bush. And I limit these comments and views to this sub-forum only as it advertises itself to be All Things Political, not All Things Republican.

When I form an opinion, I start with the premise, “who benefits” and move on from there.

When discussing the anti-Kerry smarmy smear campaign, is it so hard to see who benefits?

Might want to check the latest press release from the guy who was interviewed by the Globe. By the way, the reporter as it turns out is on the Dem's payroll.

 

[Bearded Weirdo]

Might want to check the latest press release from the guy who was interviewed by the Globe. By the way, the reporter as it turns out is on the Dem's payroll.

And that is a prime example of why election years politics are so 'fun'. Both sides distort the truth to promote their agendas. Third parties are no better, they just have less media access, making them less noticeable.

I have to admit that it is interesting watching those who had no problem spreading lies to bash Bush for the last four years now feign outrage that Kerry is now being bashed. When Bush got elected, many of the same people who bashed Clinton, feigned outrage that Bush was being bashed.

 

[Green]

On 7-21-04, George Elliot signed a declaration stating in part,

"I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

On 8-6-04, George Elliot is quoted by Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish as stating,

''It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here,"

and,

"What I did (signing the statement) was wrong," Elliott said. "Terribly, terribly wrong. I'm sorry."

Then later this same date, George Elliot gives a new declaration stating, and, without disavowing his statement to Kranish that his signing the 7-21-04 declaration was wrong, Elliot now states,

"I have read Michael Kranish's recent Boston Globe article in which Mr. Kranish misquotes me."

and,

"I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong. For my belief that he was wounded and fleeing (and shot in the back), I rely upon many sources, including Michael Kranish's (the Boston Globe reporter) own quotation of John Kerry at page 102 . . ."

What Mr. Elliot is saying is that he has no personal knowledge not only of how Kerry shot the Viet Cong, he also has no personal knowledge that individual was fleeing and wounded, other than what he has read from other sources (heresay). And if he stands by his assertion that Kranish misquoted HIM, he cannot in good faith rely on Kranish's quotations from Kerry to support his current assertion that the Viet Cong was wounded and fleeing.

Curiouser and curiouser. This has veracity of the accusation “when did you quit beating your wife.”